MikeStandardsFromIndiana said:
Sorry, Mike, Ed didn't make this call, MSNBC did. And in my opinion, this move had Comcast written all over it.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Uh-Oh, Another Progressive Talk Station Folds
- Thread starter Gregg
- Start date
Sorry, Mike, Ed didn't make this call, MSNBC did. And in my opinion, this move had Comcast written all over it.
MikeStandardsFromIndiana said:Ed Schultz isnt moving to weekends because hes out of tune with the MSNBC Evening Line up. it was his choice because he wanted to get back to getting in touch with the people of the progressive/Liberal minded people to talk with them on his show.
You don't actually believe this, do you?
Since you post here, I'm going to assume you've probably worked in broadcasting at some point. Have you EVER seen the morning guy cut back to doing weekend evenings on his own accord?
Of course you haven't. It's such a ridiculous claim that anyone who believes it should be ashamed of being so easily duped.
radiophiler said:The hosts offer intelligent, nerdy, thoughtful talk. They take swings at the right. But they make their cases intelligently. No ranting.
Telling lies in a calm voice doesn't make them truth.
S
stevensonair
Guest
Word is Schultz's wife is having health issues and he's cutting back his schedule to spend time with her. Which is perfectly legitimate.
Also, yes, many talent HAVE voluntarily cut back on their timeslots and exposure due to personal priorities. Not everything is about "being the morning guy" for decades.
Also, yes, many talent HAVE voluntarily cut back on their timeslots and exposure due to personal priorities. Not everything is about "being the morning guy" for decades.
Riiiiight. The poor ratings had nothing to do with it.
This is the problem when you start discussing liberal talk radio and TV talking head shows. Every time they fail, an excuse is made. At some point, you'd think someone would actually admit that it's just not going to work and try to find something that does.
This is the problem when you start discussing liberal talk radio and TV talking head shows. Every time they fail, an excuse is made. At some point, you'd think someone would actually admit that it's just not going to work and try to find something that does.
ProducerGuy said:radiophiler said:The hosts offer intelligent, nerdy, thoughtful talk. They take swings at the right. But they make their cases intelligently. No ranting.
Telling lies in a calm voice doesn't make them truth.
Screaming that you are telling the truth that isn't being heard, by parroting everybody else on the AM dial in most cities, doesn't make your statement unique or truthful.
In any event, how does moving Ed Schultz prove failure of progressives if he's being replaced by another progressive? My guess is, MSNBC just wants their set filled with people who look like they're either hip university professors or just walked off the set of "Portlandia". Of course, sending the vibe that one must be cool to be left doesn't exactly help expand the base OR the cable/radio audience IMO.
Ed Schultz DOES do a weekday radio show from Noon to 3pm. And an 8 to 9pm TV show weeknights. So that is a bit of a grind.
It's true, Schultz's ratings aren't great. But he does face Bill O'Reilly, Fox's #1 host, and Anderson Cooper on CNN. So that is pretty rough competition. Now, who decided Ed should move to weekends, management or Ed? Or was it a mutual decision?
If management really is not happy with you, you don't move from five hours a week to four hours a week, you move to zero hours a week.
Notice MSNBC is still putting a very liberal host in Ed's place, but someone younger and slimmer. Hey, it's TV.
MSNBC is trying to tweak its liberal formula but is solidly behind it. The network is beating CNN and some nights approaches Fox in 18-49 viewers, even though Fox's raw numbers are much higher due to its large number of viewers 50+.
Sadly that isn't the case with AM Talk Radio. Young people who might be more inclined to a progressive agenda don't listen to AM radio much. Nor do they listen much to talk on the radio, even though they do sometimes tune in Rachel Maddow or other MSNBC hosts on TV. So this is why Progressive Talk Radio has such an uphill climb.
It's true, Schultz's ratings aren't great. But he does face Bill O'Reilly, Fox's #1 host, and Anderson Cooper on CNN. So that is pretty rough competition. Now, who decided Ed should move to weekends, management or Ed? Or was it a mutual decision?
If management really is not happy with you, you don't move from five hours a week to four hours a week, you move to zero hours a week.
Notice MSNBC is still putting a very liberal host in Ed's place, but someone younger and slimmer. Hey, it's TV.
MSNBC is trying to tweak its liberal formula but is solidly behind it. The network is beating CNN and some nights approaches Fox in 18-49 viewers, even though Fox's raw numbers are much higher due to its large number of viewers 50+.
Sadly that isn't the case with AM Talk Radio. Young people who might be more inclined to a progressive agenda don't listen to AM radio much. Nor do they listen much to talk on the radio, even though they do sometimes tune in Rachel Maddow or other MSNBC hosts on TV. So this is why Progressive Talk Radio has such an uphill climb.
Add a complaint about signal strength and you hit every excuse for liberal talk's failures I have ever heard.
S
stevensonair
Guest
So his wife's health is an "excuse?"
Stay classy.
Stay classy.
ProducerGuy said:Riiiiight. The poor ratings had nothing to do with it.
This is the problem when you start discussing liberal talk radio and TV talking head shows. Every time they fail, an excuse is made. At some point, you'd think someone would actually admit that it's just not going to work and try to find something that does.
There seems to be something of a consensus that we have a working formula on what makes Conservative Talk work. Thus we seem to have a confidence in describing what conservatives are doing that is right and productive, and what conservatives are doing that is dumb and destructive.
I don't get the idea that Liberal Talk can be evaluated and scored. Its a work-in-progress where most questions about how to make the genre work have the following at the end of every explanation: "Beats the hell out'a me!"
I can go to any coffee shop in town any morning of the week, carry a book I pretend to read, and just sit there a slurp java for a couple of hours and listen to the conversation around me. At the end of two hours I have some pretty good idea what is working and not working for Conservative Talk. But where I live (and a lot of other places) I could do that every day for a month and still not overhear conversation that would enlighten me on what works and doesn't work for Liberal Talk.
So was Ed forced out because of bad ratings? Did not Ed not appeal to the audience? Does the illness of his wife have anything to do with his schedule change? Does he really look forward to having longer segments on two days a week rather than short segments five days a week? Are we getting genuine information or are we being treated to a snow-job? As I said earlier: "Beats the hell out'a me!"
D
del_griffith
Guest
Gregg said:Ed Schultz DOES do a weekday radio show from Noon to 3pm. And an 8 to 9pm TV show weeknights. So that is a bit of a grind.
It's true, Schultz's ratings aren't great. But he does face Bill O'Reilly, Fox's #1 host, and Anderson Cooper on CNN. So that is pretty rough competition. Now, who decided Ed should move to weekends, management or Ed? Or was it a mutual decision?
If management really is not happy with you, you don't move from five hours a week to four hours a week, you move to zero hours a week.
Notice MSNBC is still putting a very liberal host in Ed's place, but someone younger and slimmer. Hey, it's TV.
MSNBC is trying to tweak its liberal formula but is solidly behind it. The network is beating CNN and some nights approaches Fox in 18-49 viewers, even though Fox's raw numbers are much higher due to its large number of viewers 50+.
Sadly that isn't the case with AM Talk Radio. Young people who might be more inclined to a progressive agenda don't listen to AM radio much. Nor do they listen much to talk on the radio, even though they do sometimes tune in Rachel Maddow or other MSNBC hosts on TV. So this is why Progressive Talk Radio has such an uphill climb.
My two cents? I think what you quoted above is a piece of it. Also, mainstream is painted as liberal because they don't show a liberal idea and then destroy it. They present it. Even if the presented has no bias toward a liberal view, a conservative will see that as advocacy if the viewpoint isn't destroyed or debunked.
A balanced presentation is determined to be liberal because the liberal part of the equation wasn't destroyed or debunked.
For some reason, liberals seem happy with either just throwing it out there without bias or judgement or a balanced approach. Conservatives seem to need to debunk and advocate for their position.
I think while some liberals find solace and identity with MSNBC, it still doesn't have moths to the flame draw with liberals that conservatives have to Fox or Rush or Sean or Glenn. And I don't know or even think it's possible to have that conservative response to the flame replicated in a liberal format. I know some people who think Glenn goes over the cliff and yet they remain loyal to him and listen frequently. I guess his God and Country underpinning outweighs when he gets outrageous.
Part of that may be liberals "believe" they've well reasoned their positions and don't need the external re-enforcement. You constantly hear conservatives say the like Rush or Sean because they say what listeners believe. Liberals may not need the re-enforcement or echo chamber where conservatives do.
Again, my two cents. No empirical evidence behind it.
^^^ Dell, I agree with your assessment (Reply 30), however, liberal bias takes the same bad turns as conservative spins, and not just by their handling of issues. Liberal oriented ABC, CBS and NBC could be accused of not handling stories at all that could be critical of the Obama adminstration.
The most glaring offense: ABC recently doctored interview comments by Michelle Obama in which she technically eered on the shooting of a Chicago teen last month, wrongly representing the incident as a case involving automatic weapons. Her mistake wound up on the editing floor and was never aired. To be fair Del, had George Bush, Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon tripped up so badly, the networks would have held a barn-burner offensive. And, to be fair again, Bill Clinton would have suffered a similar public flogging.
To only a slightly lesser degree, the three mainstreamers also treaded lightly on the spurt of lawsuits filed last year against ObamaCare's birth control coverage mandates. Much of this angle centered on complaints from the Roman Catholic Church. Yet to differing degrees, ABC, CBS & NBC have been almost merciless in associating the ongoing child abuse epidemic plaguing the Catholic Church with it's selection of the new Pope.
Slanting of the news has been going on for a long time. Unfortunately, the lion's share of blame for this falls on the shoulders of the so-called liberal media, probably because, until CNN in the late '70s, and the birth of FOX News & MSNBC some 20-years later, ABC, CBS and (parent company) NBC were the only TV news organizations in the business.
The most glaring offense: ABC recently doctored interview comments by Michelle Obama in which she technically eered on the shooting of a Chicago teen last month, wrongly representing the incident as a case involving automatic weapons. Her mistake wound up on the editing floor and was never aired. To be fair Del, had George Bush, Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon tripped up so badly, the networks would have held a barn-burner offensive. And, to be fair again, Bill Clinton would have suffered a similar public flogging.
To only a slightly lesser degree, the three mainstreamers also treaded lightly on the spurt of lawsuits filed last year against ObamaCare's birth control coverage mandates. Much of this angle centered on complaints from the Roman Catholic Church. Yet to differing degrees, ABC, CBS & NBC have been almost merciless in associating the ongoing child abuse epidemic plaguing the Catholic Church with it's selection of the new Pope.
Slanting of the news has been going on for a long time. Unfortunately, the lion's share of blame for this falls on the shoulders of the so-called liberal media, probably because, until CNN in the late '70s, and the birth of FOX News & MSNBC some 20-years later, ABC, CBS and (parent company) NBC were the only TV news organizations in the business.
del_griffith said:Liberals may not need the re-enforcement or echo chamber where conservatives do.
Everyone needs reinforcement and an echo chamber. It's human nature. The liberal echo chamber is MUCH more spread out. It's pretty much everywhere except AM talk radio, Fox News, and the portion of Internet sites devoted to conservative causes.
D
del_griffith
Guest
I'm writing more to what is covered and the content of it vs what not may be covered. And for example the M Obama automatic weapons issue. ABC, CBS and NBC (with the exception of MSNBC) don't dwell as much on gotcha or technicalities in the 6:30 news. But MSNBC and Fox will. Mrs. Obama may have given a 10 minute speech and a 10 second sound bite was extracted. If it was Bush, MSNBC would point out the gaffe. With Fox, they will find the Obama gaffe.
As for the Catholic church, I remember a time when any report of the child abuse scandal (before proven) was considered liberal bias against religious institutions. It's still undetermined the depth of the abuse and coverup. But 20 years ago, just to mention it was attaching the church (Catholic or otherwise because it has happened in all denominations. Catholics just have an centralized institutional setup vs say Baptists which are more less structured as an organization) as it was mostly allegations then.
As for the Catholic church, I remember a time when any report of the child abuse scandal (before proven) was considered liberal bias against religious institutions. It's still undetermined the depth of the abuse and coverup. But 20 years ago, just to mention it was attaching the church (Catholic or otherwise because it has happened in all denominations. Catholics just have an centralized institutional setup vs say Baptists which are more less structured as an organization) as it was mostly allegations then.
yep, a few morsels of prescreened soundbite presidential gaffes presented by MSLBGTGNBC, and FAUX to the socially engineered, divided and conquered, repo/demo paradigm, dumb downed masses. what is the left hand doing, while the masses are watching the right hand?del_griffith said:If it was Bush, MSNBC would point out the gaffe. With Fox, they will find the Obama gaffe.
scott salvatori said:...what is the left hand doing, while the masses are watching the right hand?
Little, evidently. Yet another example of slant by silence-- NBC, CBS and ABC News have done little if any reporting on the Abortion Dr accused of killing an aborted baby born alive. Only one network is effectively covering this story, FOX News, who by the way also covered Republican Michelle Bachman's foot-in-the-mouth soapboxing of White House staffers tending to the Obama's family pet. No coverups, just coverage, as it should be.
The evidence is clear: abortion rights is a top rung element of the left wing platform. By ignoring the abortion Dr story, mainstreamers are again accomodating the interests of left wing culture.
Partisanship plays a frequent role in legislative politics. It has no place on Network TV News.
jfrancispastirchak said:Little, evidently. Yet another example of slant by silence-- NBC, CBS and ABC News have done little if any reporting on the Abortion Dr accused of killing an aborted baby born alive. Only one network is effectively covering this story, FOX News, who by the way also covered Republican Michelle Bachman's foot-in-the-mouth soapboxing of White House staffers tending to the Obama's family pet. No coverups, just coverage, as it should be.
The evidence is clear: abortion rights is a top rung element of the left wing platform. By ignoring the abortion Dr story, mainstreamers are again accomodating the interests of left wing culture.
Partisanship plays a frequent role in legislative politics. It has no place on Network TV News.
Because of personal scheduling demands lately, I completely missed the "abortion doctor" story and had to searching for it on line tonight. So what was the first entry that the search engine brought to my attention: ABC News reporting the abortion doctor story.
There are people who take sides on legitimate social controversies in good conscience. And then there are deranged people doing insane things. The basic fight over abortion in this country is a classic, traditional challenge that civilization is trying to deal with. This "abortion doctor" story has NOTHING to do with the classic, traditional challenge. What he is accused of doing is more like the horror story out of George just a few years back where the young man who took over his father's cremation business got in over his head and began abandoning bodies in a field out back and sending little boxes of fireplace ashes to families who thought they were receiving the ashes of their loved one. What that young man was doing had NOTHING to do with any legitimate discussion over how our society wishes to deal with the bodies of the deceased. What the "abortion doctor" was doing was just plain insane and is not a legitimate scene from the drama playing out in our society. He is simply a throwback to the era before Roe vs. Wade when women went to back-alley practitioners who performed abortions with coat-hangers. If he is guilty of the things he is accused of, abortion may be a minor player in the drama. He is accused of allowing employees of doing things only the doctor should do. He is accused of using filthy, diseased, un-sanitary surgical tools and equipment. And then his office becomes a storage place for left-over human remains?
What this thread seems to be proving right now is that we see and hear on TV what we want to see and hear. We IGNORE on TV what we DON'T want to see and hear.
And then WE accuse the news media of being biased.
They say Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Are we any better? We sit here and throw verbal molotov cocktails at each other about Fox vs MSNBC..... and I'm not sure we comprehend just what took place in Philadelphia. But apparently what we DO comprehend is.... it is the TV Networks fault.... what ever it was that happened.
^^^ Goat--
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/45915079145/what-bias-the-big-three-networks-all-skip-abortion
The biased news coverage charge against "Big Three" network coverage of Dr Gosnell is just now gaining traction. Pew & Media Research Center are now tracking it as well.
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/45915079145/what-bias-the-big-three-networks-all-skip-abortion
The biased news coverage charge against "Big Three" network coverage of Dr Gosnell is just now gaining traction. Pew & Media Research Center are now tracking it as well.
O.K. Having a discussion about the media and who is and who is NOT biased is a legitimate discussion.
But you stretch the credibility of the discussion a bit when you try to prove some part of the media is liberal by presenting us a quote from a some part of the media that is conservative.
Last year I was involved in a "round robin e-mail" at the local level as we attempted to get some equitable congressional redistricting in our area. (This "round robin" included Republicans, Democrats and Tea Part folk in my county.)
I think I can thank one of the more colorful Tea Party people in my county for taking my e-mail address and sharing it with about TWENTY blogs and news letters that set a new standard for being... not just conservative... but being 'head-banging outrageous' in their far Right position. (I do my Republican friends a dis-service if I call these news letters and the person I think signed me up... if I call them Conservative.)
Who gets to drive down the surveyors stake and proclaim: "Right here - - -> This is the CENTER of the universe! Every one over here is to the right, and everyone over here is to the left."
But you stretch the credibility of the discussion a bit when you try to prove some part of the media is liberal by presenting us a quote from a some part of the media that is conservative.
Last year I was involved in a "round robin e-mail" at the local level as we attempted to get some equitable congressional redistricting in our area. (This "round robin" included Republicans, Democrats and Tea Part folk in my county.)
I think I can thank one of the more colorful Tea Party people in my county for taking my e-mail address and sharing it with about TWENTY blogs and news letters that set a new standard for being... not just conservative... but being 'head-banging outrageous' in their far Right position. (I do my Republican friends a dis-service if I call these news letters and the person I think signed me up... if I call them Conservative.)
Who gets to drive down the surveyors stake and proclaim: "Right here - - -> This is the CENTER of the universe! Every one over here is to the right, and everyone over here is to the left."
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:There are people who take sides on legitimate social controversies in good conscience. And then there are deranged people doing insane things. The basic fight over abortion in this country is a classic, traditional challenge that civilization is trying to deal with. This "abortion doctor" story has NOTHING to do with the classic, traditional challenge.
People of good conscience who take sides on legitimate controversies will still sometimes use the actions of deranged people to make their point, if it is to their advantage. Politicians do this all the time. And sometimes the results of the actions of deranged people result in legislative action. This is one reason why such actions sometimes get big play in the national news.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.